Magazine limit

[southjk]

I think I know the answer but have not seen it specifically addressed in the discussions on the magazine limit. Does the presidents new proposal of a 10 round limit apply to rifle magazines only or all magazines for pistols and rifles?

[Spydr1299]

Was wondering the same thing myself, but I'm sure it goes for all since I haven't see it specified.

[SoCalNoMore]

If it is taken from the 1994 as the say it will model, then yes. All detachable feeding devices will be limited to 10.

[Skans]

Recall that the '94 ban grandfathered existing mags over 10 rounds. I don't know what this new proposed ban does.

[gc70]

H.R.138 - Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act

Any magazine is limited to 10 rounds. Possession is grandfathered, but transfers are prohibited. If you have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, you will not only get to keep it, you will have to keep it.

[noelf2]

Won't happen.

[StewNTexas]

Yes, but don't forget. The bad guys are being told that they can't have more than 10 rounds either.

[lcpiper]

Don't forget when they talk about reinstating the ban somehow the word "strengthened" keeps getting tossed in there as well.

It's sort of like "closing loopholes in NICS checks. The NICS checks were for retail sales of firearms, not private sales, now they want to add private sales and call them loop holes in the original law.

Don't confuse this with "straw sales" buying the gun for someone else who is a prohibited possessor.

[carguychris]

Possession is grandfathered, but transfers are prohibited. If you have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, you will not only get to keep it, you will have to keep it.

...for now. Keep in mind that this is only a proposal. Negotiations will occur.

A federal blanket ban on transfers may run afoul of the ex post facto clause in Article I of the Constitution and/or the takings clause in the 5A, not to mention the Heller SCOTUS decision. There is a chance that this provision may prompt the federal courts to immediately block enforcement of the whole law, a possibility that may prompt even some strong supporters of the legislation to amend this provision away so the baby won't be thrown out with the bathwater.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by carguychris

Keep in mind that this is only a proposal. Negotiations will occur.

I would hope that no negotiation would occur to eliminate the transfer prohibition. Eliminating the transfer prohibition would only increase the prospects of the bill being passed. The more horrible the bill is, the less likely it will be passed - and a transfer prohibition resulting in eventual confiscation or forfeiture is very nasty. And the more horrible the bill, the more likely it would not survive a judicial challenge.

A ban on transfers would not be an ex post facto law. It would not criminalize something done in the past, but a future action of transferring a magazine.

I am not particularly confident that a transfer ban would violate the takings clause, partly because magazines would not be taken for "public use." The eventual confiscation of banned magazines might be viewed as a forfeiture of a public nuisance, which requires no compensation.

[2ndsojourn]

From H.R. 138:

‘‘A large capacity ammunition feeding device manufac14
tured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall
15 be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that
16 the device was manufactured after such date of enactment,
17 and such other identification as the Attorney General may
18 by regulation prescribe.’’.

I guess any magazine manufactured after such a date without a serial number will be assumed to be legally made prior to the enactment date?

[lcpiper]

A simple stamp stating it met some requirment, even a simple symbol would suffice to satisfy a requirement. Serialization is only necessary when things are to be tracked like the weapons themselves.

First they say all the new ones have to be marked, then the old ones as well. Then they say they all need to be recorded so that latter they can come get them.

P.S. This is from Senator Al Franken of Minnesota;

In a carefully worded statement, Franken said he's "always supported the Second Amendment rights of Minnesotans to own firearms for collection, protection, and sport. But I also think we need to find a balance between those rights and the safety of our children and our communities."

Find the words collection, or sport anywhere in the 2nd Amendment, try.